This topic is to discuss the different types or classifications of abrogation as itemized by the scholars. This will help in understanding why they believed in abrogation and whether abrogation did happen.

I'll start by the what As-Suyooti wrote in his book, "Al-Itqaan fi `Uloom Al-Qur'aan":

Abrogating a command before it was complied with, such as 58:12. The problem with this example is that it was complied with. By Ali ibn Abi-Taalib, may God have been pleased with him.

Abrogating laws of prior peoples, such as Qisaas (2:178) and ransom (4:92). The problem with this is that we do not know what the laws of prior nations were. They altered their scriptures.

Abrogating commands not mentioned in the Quran, such as Qibla toward Jerusalem and fasting on the tenth of Muharram. To call this an abrogation is overreaching. There is no evidence that the initial practices were by order from God.

Abrogating a reason-bound command when the reason is gone, such as requiring endurance when Muslims are few and weak but mandating fighting when they are strong. By definition, contingent rulings roll with their contingencies. If Muslims become weak again, they again have to endure and not fight.

Abrogating a timed command when its allotted time has passed, such as 2:109. This is not abrogation either. It's similar to contingent rulings.

A mandate abrogating a mandate and the original mandate is no longer permitted, such as abrogating house arrest of fornicators by the penalty specified later. The problem with this example is that it's an interpretation error, see this topic for details.

A mandate abrogating a mandate but the original mandate remains permitted, such as the Musaabara verse, 8:65. By definition, if the original ruling remains permitted, then it was not abrogated!

A mandate abrogating a recommendation, such as mandating fighting after it was only suggested. Since it does not annul the previous ruling, it cannot be abrogation. The merit of this type of abrogation is that the implied allowance for not doing the previous ruling is now abrogated by the new mandate. Foundationsts (الأصوليون) have agreed that changing a default allowance does not constitute abrogation.

A recommendation abrogating a mandate, such as staying up at night praying. See this topic for refuting this example.

Verses which were abrogated both in recitation and ruling, such as what `Aa'isha narrated about the minimum number of sucklings that define a sucking sibling. Many scholars have discussed that.

Verses which were abrogated in ruling but not in recitation, and that is the subject of all the books about abrogation. Most of the verses mentioned were made specific later, not abrogated.

He reports that the majority agree with this, but that Abul-Hasan At-Tameemi and Abu-Haneefa's colleagues do not. Those who agree quote the example of the sacrifice of Abraham of his son which they said was abrogated by the sacrifice of a ram, and the mandate of fifty prayers during the ascension journey which was later abrogated to five only. Those who disagreed regarded such abrogation as a change of mind. Ibn Al-Jawzi disagrees with the argument of mind change.

He reports that the majority agree with this, but that Abul-Hasan At-Tameemi and Abu-Haneefa's colleagues do not. Those who agree quote the example of the sacrifice of Abraham of his son which they said was abrogated by the sacrifice of a ram, and the mandate of fifty prayers during the ascension journey which was later abrogated to five only. Those who disagreed regarded such abrogation as a change of mind. Ibn Al-Jawzi disagrees with the argument of mind change.

As I get more into this, I find that enlarging the scope of what "abrogation" means and what it covers could well be the reason why there is a majority that agrees with abrogation. The question is agree with what exactly? If someone who agrees that 50 prayers were decreed and then reduced to 5 is considered to be in the majority that 'agrees with abrogation', then the majority will include almost everybody. This is why I am keen on addressing a single, specific question:

Are there verses in the text of the Quran that are abrogated verses?

I cannot ascertain what the majority opinion on this question is, since statements about majority opinions are invoked in a larger context than this question. The difference between something being abrogated that is no longer there and something being abrogated and still is there is a profound difference that does not seem to be given due weight or distinction.

Verses which were abrogated both in recitation and ruling, such as what `Aa'isha narrated about the minimum number of sucklings that define a sucking sibling. Many scholars have discussed that.

Verses which were abrogated in ruling but not in recitation, and that is the subject of all the books about abrogation. Most of the verses mentioned were made specific later, not abrogated.

Verses which were abrogated in recitation but not in ruling, such as the verse which specified stoning of the elderly fornicators.

In volume 1 of his book, Dr. Mostafa Zaid considers only two of these types, the first and the second. He argues against the third type where the verse is gone but the ruling lives on, but he vigorously defends the second type, which the thesis of this project opposes. For some reason, he includes the case of `Aa'isha that you refer to in the first type as belonging to the third type and refutes its authenticity. The discussion is in items 383-392 on pages 270-276.

Verses which were abrogated both in recitation and ruling, such as what `Aa'isha narrated about the minimum number of sucklings that define a sucking sibling. Many scholars have discussed that.

Verses which were abrogated in ruling but not in recitation, and that is the subject of all the books about abrogation. Most of the verses mentioned were made specific later, not abrogated.

Verses which were abrogated in recitation but not in ruling, such as the verse which specified stoning of the elderly fornicators.

Burton makes a blunt statement in the last paragraph of his book about these three types of abrogation. On page 208, he says (the PBUH added by me):

"That Muhammad (PBUH) accepted, or even heard of the theories of naskh in all their three-fold modality is certainly untrue, for we have exposed the origins of the theories in gradual developments arising from the attempts of the exegetes and usulis ..."

Notwithstanding that this is coming from a non-Muslim who at times showed some contempt, the phrasing of this conclusion is worth noting.

In his book , Al-Jabri discusses the two types of abrogation outside the abrogation doctrine, which are abrogating the recitation but not the ruling and abrogating the recitation and the ruling, at length (pages 37-55). His approach is to take case by case, rather than refute the principle of a particular type of abrogation. For these two types, there are only two cases to refute (the stoning case attributed to Omar and the nursing case attributed to Aisha, may God be pleased with them).

My conclusion after reading this part of the book is that I would not touch the subject in our treatment, and would strictly stick to the abrogation doctrine and nothing else. The essence of the arguments in that part have to do with authenticity, authority, and verbal habits, and the discussion goes into very awkward territory that is highly argumentative and at times disrespectful. There is absolutely no way I can see that this can be settled in a crisp manner.

Having gone in some depth into Al-Jabri's book, here is the picture that is starting to emerge. If we consider the abrogation views of the Hanafi school as one extreme, in the sense that any source in the religion can abrogate pretty much any other source, then Al-Jabri's view is the other extreme, where nothing can be abrogated by anything at all. To defend his view, Al-Jabri uses highly technical, highly philosophical, and pretty argumentative logic. I think he is as much a victim of bundling as the other extreme, where he just doesn't think that abrogation within the religion is a legitimate notion under any circumstances.

Al-Jabri briefly states on pages 104-105 of his book an interesting remark. He says that in the early days of the revelation, the Prophet (PBUH) followed some aspects of previous books of revelation, and some of the scriptures that were followed were kept in written form by People of the Book at that time. Al-Jabri postulates that some early Muslims may have confused those with Quranic verses in their mind, hence later claimed that they were abrogated in recitation when they were not included in the text of the Quran. This obviously has no bearing on the abrogation doctrine since the 'verses' are gone, but I haven't read this remark before so I thought it was worth noting.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum